(02-02-2017 12:26 PM)tomilay Wrote: First heard of him when he was banned from twitter for leading trolls on a racist abuse of a black actor, I forget who. While I don't question his right to free speech, his right to spew hate enjoys pride of place near the bottom of my concerns.

I think he led the tirade (one of many) against Leslie Jones? Which led to the alt-right hack of her email and the leaking of her personal photos.

Yes, that's correct. It was Leslie Jones. And before that, he was targeting people in the gamergate fiasco. And he's written plenty of hateful pieces for the Breitbart rag. He's not new to this game. He should not be allowed to speak at some venues.

(02-02-2017 12:28 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: I think he led the tirade (one of many) against Leslie Jones? Which led to the alt-right hack of her email and the leaking of her personal photos.

Yes, that's correct. It was Leslie Jones. And before that, he was targeting people in the gamergate fiasco. And he's written plenty of hateful pieces for the Breitbart rag. He's not new to this game. He should not be allowed to speak at some venues.

(02-02-2017 12:26 PM)tomilay Wrote: First heard of him when he was banned from twitter for leading trolls on a racist abuse of a black actor, I forget who. While I don't question his right to free speech, his right to spew hate enjoys pride of place near the bottom of my concerns.

I think he led the tirade (one of many) against Leslie Jones? Which led to the alt-right hack of her email and the leaking of her personal photos.

Yep. It's not like the world is going to miss much because this guy has not been heard. Free speech for him is just the right to be an asshole and a nuisance - the least valuable attributes of free speech IMO.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg

(02-02-2017 12:28 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: I think he led the tirade (one of many) against Leslie Jones? Which led to the alt-right hack of her email and the leaking of her personal photos.

Yep. It's not like the world is going to miss much because this guy has not been heard. Free speech for him is just the right to be an asshole and a nuisance - the least valuable attributes of free speech IMO.

And in any event, the only way to have your right to free speech violated is if the government tries to take away your ability to vocalize your opinion. A private organization not wanting to host you, or people protesting you, or people calling you an asshole, or even people hurling rocks at you, are not violations of your free speech. You're still free to say whatever you want, other people are free to say whatever they want in response. People aren't free to harm you because that is illegal and they can justifiably be criminally punished, but them harming you doesn't mean your right to free speech was taken away or placed in jeopardy.

(02-02-2017 12:48 PM)tomilay Wrote: Yep. It's not like the world is going to miss much because this guy has not been heard. Free speech for him is just the right to be an asshole and a nuisance - the least valuable attributes of free speech IMO.

And in any event, the only way to have your right to free speech violated is if the government tries to take away your ability to vocalize your opinion. A private organization not wanting to host you, or people protesting you, or people calling you an asshole, or even people hurling rocks at you, are not violations of your free speech. You're still free to say whatever you want, other people are free to say whatever they want in response. People aren't free to harm you because that is illegal and they can justifiably be criminally punished, but them harming you doesn't mean your right to free speech was taken away or placed in jeopardy.

Precisely. Personally, I think people often fail to understand what free speech is. When Milo was banned from twitter, people cried that his free speech was being violated. That's absurd.

In the same way, if someone here says something and gets themselves banned from the forums, their free speech has not been violated.

(02-02-2017 12:40 PM)Emma Wrote: Yes, that's correct. It was Leslie Jones. And before that, he was targeting people in the gamergate fiasco. And he's written plenty of hateful pieces for the Breitbart rag. He's not new to this game. He should not be allowed to speak at some venues.

I agree wholeheartedly. He is scum.

While I do agree the guy is scum. Shutting down that kind speech isn't always the best approach -- and certainly never by violence. I still feel it's far more effective to allow people humiliate themselves publicly and have their ideas refuted immediately. Not a debate but a counter argument. In other words, allow him to speak for 30 minutes and let someone else speak for 30 minutes to refute his points. That is far more effective than victimizing them and giving them a platform to cry poor me, m m my freedomsss...

Back in the 80s, UC Berkeley allowed holocaust denier speak, but they followed that speech up with a holocaust survivor who blasted every single point the denier tried to make. Initially the proposal was met with outrage, the compromise was allow someone else to talk after they left. Again, it wasn't a debate, because you can't debate with those types and they're unworthy of debate -- It's like the creationist who believes the planet is 6 thousand years old. Don't debate them but you should refute them point by point to anyone who wants to hear it.

When you engage in debate you're telling them their ideas are worthy of consideration. Not all ideas are.

But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

(02-02-2017 12:42 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: I agree wholeheartedly. He is scum.

While I do agree the guy is scum. Shutting down that kind speech isn't always the best approach -- and certainly never by violence. I still feel it's far more effective to allow people humiliate themselves publicly and have their ideas refuted immediately. Not a debate but a counter argument. In other words, allow him to speak for 30 minutes and let someone else speak for 30 minutes to refute his points. That is far more effective than victimizing them and giving them a platform to cry poor me, m m my freedomsss...

Back in the 80s, UC Berkeley allowed holocaust denier speak, but they followed that speech up with a holocaust survivor who blasted every single point the denier tried to make. Initially the proposal was met with outrage, the compromise was allow someone else to talk after they left. Again, it wasn't a debate, because you can't debate with those types and they're unworthy of debate -- It's like the creationist who believes the planet is 6 thousand years old. Don't debate them but you should refute them point by point to anyone who wants to hear it.

When you engage in debate you're telling them their ideas are worthy of consideration. Not all ideas are.

"Shutting down that kind speech isn't always the best approach..."

I'm not advocating that he not be allowed to freely express his bullshit, but that doesn't mean that places like Universities have to be the ones to allow it. Let him stand on a street corner or write his pathetic little books. His right to free speech doesn't mean he has the right to any and every venue to express it.

(02-02-2017 12:42 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: I agree wholeheartedly. He is scum.

While I do agree the guy is scum. Shutting down that kind speech isn't always the best approach -- and certainly never by violence. I still feel it's far more effective to allow people humiliate themselves publicly and have their ideas refuted immediately. Not a debate but a counter argument. In other words, allow him to speak for 30 minutes and let someone else speak for 30 minutes to refute his points. That is far more effective than victimizing them and giving them a platform to cry poor me, m m my freedomsss...

Back in the 80s, UC Berkeley allowed holocaust denier speak, but they followed that speech up with a holocaust survivor who blasted every single point the denier tried to make. Initially the proposal was met with outrage, the compromise was allow someone else to talk after they left. Again, it wasn't a debate, because you can't debate with those types and they're unworthy of debate -- It's like the creationist who believes the planet is 6 thousand years old. Don't debate them but you should refute them point by point to anyone who wants to hear it.

When you engage in debate you're telling them their ideas are worthy of consideration. Not all ideas are.

In most cases, I agree. But in the case of Milo specifically- he causes harm to students. That is not the venue at which he should be allowed to speak. He creates a dangerous environment by publicly mocking specific students. He's done this multiple times and is well-known for it.

Any other private venue, yeah, he shouldn't be blocked from speaking, unless the venue owner doesn't want to give him a platform (completely their choice). And I don't think the government should step in and ban him or something, I think that university leadership needs to make that decision. And they need to consider the safety of students when they do.

Milo is a very special case, in that he will pick an individual from the campus and humiliate them in front of everyone at the venue. Regardless of whether or not someone refutes him afterward, the damage is already done. It doesn't matter if he issues an apology afterward. People have already been harmed. With Milo in particular, this is not a matter of free speech. Pick someone else who won't attack individuals for the purpose of driving them from the school.

(02-02-2017 12:42 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: I agree wholeheartedly. He is scum.

While I do agree the guy is scum. Shutting down that kind speech isn't always the best approach -- and certainly never by violence. I still feel it's far more effective to allow people humiliate themselves publicly and have their ideas refuted immediately. Not a debate but a counter argument. In other words, allow him to speak for 30 minutes and let someone else speak for 30 minutes to refute his points. That is far more effective than victimizing them and giving them a platform to cry poor me, m m my freedomsss...

Back in the 80s, UC Berkeley allowed holocaust denier speak, but they followed that speech up with a holocaust survivor who blasted every single point the denier tried to make. Initially the proposal was met with outrage, the compromise was allow someone else to talk after they left. Again, it wasn't a debate, because you can't debate with those types and they're unworthy of debate -- It's like the creationist who believes the planet is 6 thousand years old. Don't debate them but you should refute them point by point to anyone who wants to hear it.

When you engage in debate you're telling them their ideas are worthy of consideration. Not all ideas are.

"...and certainly never by violence."

Also, I don't see anyone here advocating that violence was or is the answer in terms of how best to respond. What has been pointed out, repeatedly, is that people like this expect and want violence and that response shouldn't be unexpected given their rhetoric.

Why hasn't this guy been hit with a slander or libel suit yet?
If he's publicly harming an individual, isn't this grounds for a civil suit, at least?
If he's demonizing a group of people, isn't that considered hate speech?

Your faith is not evidence, your opinion is not fact, and your bias is not wisdom